Observations of Great Debate - ID and thermodynamics

Regulating the flow of heat/energy relative to my A and B has nothing to do with 2ltd? Why not?Bedy by time for buz. Talk to you again, the good Lord willing, of course.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

damn you, forced me get out my old chemistry books during my holiday.
:}The BBC did a good discussion on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which I recommend everyone take a listen.So I believe the debate was not to find out if the Laws of Thermodynamics are true but if the Law of Thermodynamics allows for a god (or gods?) with infinite energy, which infinite defined (I assume becaue you have yet to define yourself) as something that will always be and never end. To me this definition is poor and has more to do with time than with energy, but you could mean infinite energy. Anyway, I think you are confusing the term infinite with the term constant. Energy in the context of science and the Laws of Thermodynamics means the capacity to do work, or in other words to move matter. In this regard we only measure changes inLets move on"The 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that the internal energy (E) of a system, the sum of the kinetic and potential energy of all of its particles, changes through the addition or removal of heat (q) and/or work (w)."change in E = q + wYou must agree that if you are not in the system then you are in the surroundings. The system and its surrounds make up the universeE(universe) = E(system) + E (surroundings)Heat and/or work gained by the system is lost by the surroundings(q + w) of the system = -(q + w) of the surroundingsHeat and/or work gained by the surroundings is lost by the system-(q + w) of the system = (q + w) of the surroundingsThis means that the total energy of the universe is constant. Keep in mind though that through E=mc^2 that energy and matter can be converted into each other.Now the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all processes occur spontaneously in the direction that increases the entropy of the universe. Entropy is the measure of disorder in a system, usually refered as heat.This brings us to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics that states that a perfect crystal has zero entropy at a temperature of absolute zero.I don't believe the Laws of Thermodynamic disproves the idea of a higher power, but I do think they disprove one in this universe because the universe in these laws cannot have infinite energy but constant energy with an actual value, say 10^99999 as a reference. This is a real number, infinity can't work becaue you can't put infinity in the equation let alone put other numbers in the equation and get out infinity.Another thing is that I believe the Law of Thermodynamics need an actual physical entity to cause this change in energy. When you or someone else is able to point to something and say, "Hey that physical thing could be god" then maybe you can start the argument, but until then I just think your argument is a fish out of water.[qt]this is no more preposterous or harder to comprehend than National Geographic's...[/qt]That is the second or third time in this discussion that you brought up National Geographic like it is some authority in scientific literature. If I paraphrased The National Geographic as a primary source, I would be laughed at. If you want to understand science I suggest you pick up a real peer-reviewed journal like Nature or some other journal at your local library and skip the Walmart magazine shelf. Some of them are hard to read; I personally need to keep a dictionary next to me, but you learn a lot more.This message has been edited by Kevin, 12-23-2004 02:41 AM

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

Buz, please stop spouting nonsense. THINK about what you are saying. My point is that since drawing energy from an infinite source does not diminish that source, doing so is equivalent to creating energy. THus if there is an infinite source of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics is moot.So far you have claimed that if the system is "eternal" that somehow negates the argument. Of course you have no explanation of how it could do so because it doea not. Now you claim that if it is wthin a cloased system it somehow negates my argument. yet again you have no explanation because it does not.So basically you are wildly throwing out irrelevancies and claiming that they refute my argment.The simple fact is that your system contained two regions - one with an infi ite energy source and the other without. Drawing energy from the infinite source to add to the other is equivalent to creating energy in the other region. Thus the First Law of thermodynamics is moot within the system. Your attempt at refutation relies on ignoring what happens within the system - which is utterly pointless since the universe itself is part of the system.And I point out yet again you have failed to explain what the entropy of an infinite power source is or how it could increase. Which is absolutely necessary for your claim to deal with the second law.And appealing to "ID regulated work" isn't very useful. A refrigerator manages to move heat outside, but it does so by dissipating even more heat into the environment. It doesn't do well at producing concentrated energy and on themodynamic grounds alone it would fail completely if the temperature outside rose too high.And this really has to be my last post this year.

Here is a more direct link to the talk Kevin was speaking about:BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, The Second Law of Thermodynamics

What if it diminished the distribution of sinks but within the same transifintie cardinal magnitude? This did not remand how 2td is suffciently nor necessarily true but is speuclative for the natural historian whom seeks that actual infinite in existence. Physics would have to be developed dimensionally with multiple real number sets to explain different logics but we do not have this in chemistry via physics nor the information in biology to find the as an "instructed mixture" biophysically but with infinite divisibility, integration across points going to infinity, organizations of propositional functions, comptuer functionality , a psychology of c/e, and talk for nothing but talk sake provides the end to which the means would THEN be a better understanding of thermodyanmics from this LAYER of kinematics that might evetually be used non-linearly FROM this equilibrated ordnials IN this same cardinal. But if this was not ONE cardinal, yes, buz's beyond infinity might be questionable between ID creationism and YEC criticism but we do not find this position much represented here.

I think I’ve touched on this before, but I really feel strongly that it needs restating for the benefit of buzsaw and his pet theory.The laws of thermodynamics describe what happens in the universe without any input from an extra natural source. In a very simplistic way this means that if I put a hot cup of coffee outside in the winter it will get cold. The transfer of the heat from the coffee to the surrounding air is totally natural and obeys thermodynamic laws. There is no need to say that there was divine intervention. Similarly, a person suffering from hypothermia can be cured via a form of touch, i.e. body warmth from another individual who isn’t hypothermic and the heat transfers from the healthy person to the hypothermic one. Again, we don’t have to invoke the power of the divine or miracles to explain it. In other words, the natural workings of the universe happily account for these two examples.We get into the realms of the miraculous and the divine when we come across occurrences which go against these natural workings, for example the hot cup of coffee out in the cold gets warmer or the body heat from the healthy person increases as the temperature of the hypothermia victim falls further until the healthy person ends up par-boiled and the hypothermia victim is an ice-cube. We don’t see these things happen naturally. By definition a miracle is something that happens in spite of natural laws. By ascribing the laws of thermodynamics to Christ healing the sick, you take it out of the realm of a divine miracle and reduce it to a hot cup of coffee cooling down in a blizzard.It’s round about this point that I can’t fathom why on earth buzsaw would want to claim that God and Jesus didn’t perform any miracles. He seems to be trying to prove that God isn’t divine, isn’t all-powerful, but is shackled by the laws of thermodynamics. Now, by extension, this suggests that God would be unable to become flesh, Jesus wouldn’t exist (since his conception was a miracle and needs God to be above the laws of nature). Extending even further, the conclusion you would have to draw is that Jesus was not the Son of God, was not the Messiah or Christ and that modern-day Christians are delusional individuals who believe in a fairy story.I have to ask, buzsaw, is this your purpose? Are you really out to disprove the whole ethos behind Christianity? Over the last few days I’ve thought about your hypothesis and tried to find a way out of this dilemma for you. I can’t find one and to be quite honest I have to say that if you succeed in convincing me that the miracles of God and Jesus obey any of the laws of thermodynamics, then you’ll have succeeded in convincing me that Jesus was not the Messiah. That would be one less Christian in the world courtesy of your hypothesis which you really, truly believe is evidence FOR God and the divine. Buz, you’re actually arguing against the omnipotence of God and you don’t realise it. You have to think through exactly where your argument goes and the bottom line of your argument is that there is no God as He is described in the Bible.To be honest, your hypothesis isn’t going to have any effect on my faith because, as a practicing scientist I can see that all your so-called evidence is regurgitated, misunderstood pseudoscientific crap. You seem to be so blinded by the brilliance of your thermodynamic theory that you think fits God into the realms of science that you haven’t seen the fatal flaw — proof of God following thermodynamic laws to perform miracles, makes the miracles anything but miraculous. The trick is to show that God can perform acts which go against the laws of thermodynamics and these acts, by definition, can then be called miracles. To then try to prove that they follow the laws of thermodynamics after proving that they don’t means that you’re back exactly where you started without any miraculous event. Can you really not see this?Edited to fix typo, probably missed oodles moreThis message has been edited by Trixie, 12-23-2004 03:32 PM

Not to mention creating more order in the universe. That would go against the 2nd Law of ThermodynamicsThis message has been edited by Kevin, 12-23-2004 04:27 PM{Edited quote box formating - Changed two "qt's" to "qs's. - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-23-2004 04:34 PM

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

A lot of discussion has revolved around the image of god as an infinite source of energy.Is this necessarily so?Rather than be a source of energy all {he/she/it/they} needs to have is unlimited control of all the available energy to still meet the requirements of omni-this-and-that.As I drive my car down the highway I have control of considerable energy, but I myself add very little to it.{God as usually envisaged by formal religions} is "outside" the universe, therefore it cannot rationally be considered bound by any part of it. Likewise the universe cannot be made of any part of this {God as usually envisaged by formal religions} as the usual picture is of an external creation.Now if god gave birth to the universe that would be a different image, and my personal favorite is god divesting itself of godhood to become the universe that will in the end resurect a new and more (fill in the blank) being.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and if omnipotent is not an infinite source of energy but infinite control of the energy there is no such problem.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

damn you, forced me get out my old chemistry books during my holiday.
:}
The BBC did a good discussion on the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which I recommend everyone take a listen. I see what you mean by the definition problem. In the debate, Jar had a problem with omnipotent, so I digressed from that, but that's still the word which I think conveys what I'm trying to describe. Have you read my op in the debate? How can a boundless spaced universe have surroundings? It is also a closed system, in that there is no surroundings from which it get's energy. Imo, by definition, the universe is all that exists, including boundless space. Regardless, my op system has boundless space and omnipotent/unlimited energy within it's boundless space. What surroundings? That's assuming there's no ID in the system to regulate the flow of heat/energy. Maybe you need to copy and paste my system from the debate, similar to the one of the scientist (name not coming to mind) in the link and calculate on that basis. The god of the Bible dwells in a physical place called Heaven where there are streets of transparent gold, gates of pearl, as well as precious stones, etc. He sits on a physical throne and he is depicted as having brightness greater than any human could look at and live. That's physical stuff. I keep a dictionary at hand also. How far off is National Geographic's submicroscopic bit of space from the prebang particle of other big bangers?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

You crow in the darkness. If your sun comes up and you soundly refute my argument, then you may crow in the light. No. It's the equivalent of a measure of equiliberium of the omnipotent energy existing within the system. The entropy between the A and B of my system as per debate is controlled by A. The Bible says our heaven and earth (I assume our solar system or possibly our galaxy) will burn up and "roll up like a scroll," possibly implicating super nova and/or black hole, but not necessarily. It also says he will create a new heaven and earth, so there is increase of entropy within the system as well as decrease when work is applied. How, specifically does that violate ltd? Talk to you in 05, Lord willing. May your 05 be God blessed with a wonderful decrease in the entropy of your life's system.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Work is allowed in 2ltd. Right?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

Creating order requires work. Creating disorder causes energy. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all processes occur spontaneously in the direction that increases the entropy of the universe. Another way to say it is that disorder is increasing in the universe. The second law basically says that, in a closed system, you can't finish any real physical process with as much useful energy as you had to start with. Some is always wasted. Take for example the earth. The earth alone is an open system, it gets energy from the sun and with this energy work is done on earth. Now if we include the sun into the system of earth then that would be a pretty much closed system. Of all the energy that is emitted from the sun, only some comes to earth, and of that the same amount of energy, in the form of useless energy, is released from the earth. I believe you now. All that evidence just convinced me. I didn't realize that the mythological people told in that collection of stories were so far more technologically advanced than we that they could identify a physical being in a physical place while we cannot.

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent

You sidestepped my question, so I'll state it another way. When work is applied to a system, entropy can be decreased. Right?Buz question: "How can a boundless spaced universe have surroundings? It is also a closed system, in that there is no surroundings from which it get's energy. Imo, by definition, the universe is all that exists, including boundless space. Regardless, my op system has boundless space and omnipotent/unlimited energy within it's boundless space."Kevin Response: "Take for example the earth. The earth alone is an open system, it gets energy from the sun and with this energy work is done on earth. Now if we include the sun into the system of earth then that would be a pretty much closed system. Of all the energy that is emitted from the sun, only some comes to earth, and of that the same amount of energy, in the form of useless energy, is released from the earth."You flat out evaded my question here.
My question was not about earth which has surroundings. It pertained specifically to a boundless space universe. Please respond by answering my specific question as stated. This thread topic is about the great debate. The debate topic was not about whether the Biblical account is true or not. It was about whether my hypothetical Biblically based universe violated td laws or not. Your response comments are off topic.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

I wanted you to connect the dots yourself but I guess you want me to. Or, maybe we have yet to define work. In physics work is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another, especially the transfer of energy to a body by the application of a force that moves the body in the direction of the force."So, to answer your question, "if work is applied to the system entropy can decrease;" the answer is no. In a open system like I mentioned (or evaded in your words) with the earth, it may look like order is actually increasing but in reality it is not. If order is increasing somewhere in the system, then somewhere else in the system order is becoming disordered.I could go onto Gibbs free energy and what is needed for work to happen, but I believe you can look that up for yourself since I believe it will be off topic to explain to you general chemistry concepts.The point is, does the laws of thermodynamics disprove an omnipotent god?Yes, at least in this universe, because:1. Omnipotent means one having unlimited power.
a. Energy is the capacity to do work.
b. Work is the transfer of energy.2. The energy in a closed system is constant. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, there must be a fixed amount of energy in a closed system.3. For work to be done energy is tranfered from a higher energy system to one of lower energy.4. As energy is being transfered as in #3, some of the energy is released as useless energy (heat). In other words the universe tends to disorder. I'm just saying read a more primary source for the Big Bang theory. Start with the priest that first came up with the idea, Georges-Henri Lematre then work your way up to today.This message has been edited by Kevin, 12-28-2004 22:06 AM

---

Morality is temporary, wisdom is permanent